Talk:Standard electrode potential: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:06, 26 August 2006

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merge/expansion

I am currently working on a new version of this article at Standard electrode potential/Temp. Physchim62 (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the two should be merged. There is little that one would want to say on either subject without a very large degree of overlap Ahw001 09:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to mantain the articles separated because many people are in confusion with the different ways to relate to the same concept. 26 august 2006

A question

Can someone please explain to me why Li has a lower value than K (for example), but K is more electropositive? Thanks... -postglock 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Error Correction

I think there is a small problem with the first line of the standard reduction potentials table displayed in this article. it says:

  F2(g) + 2e-      -->      2 F (aq)

it _should_ say

  F2(g) + 2e-      -->      2 F- (aq)

I don't know how else to edit this. sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.83.220 (talk • contribs)

You are right, but I don't really have the software capable of fixing this up either. Anyone else? -postglock 14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Link

The 4th external link at the bottom on Electrochemical reactions doesn't seem to work for me, it just resturns a 404 error. Is this the same for anyone else? If so it should probably be removed. sijarvis 12:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link removed. -postglock 14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 I agree that the two should be merged. There is little that one would want to say on either subject without a very large degree of overlap [[User:Ahw001|Ahw001]] 09:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
+I think it's better to mantain the articles separated because many people are in confusion with the different ways to relate to the same concept. 26 august 2006
 == A question ==